22. Yes, I thought it was that same old case. What a stellar record Greenwald

has as an attorney if this minor disagreement on RULES in NY V rules in other states is all they can come up. I know lawyers who would die to have only this one minor disagreement with a judge on their record.

As a student for Court Stenography, I saw attorneys, good ones, run out of courtrooms by judges on a regular basis.

This is pathetic, really. A total deception which has been debunked each time s/he reposts it hoping for a different result.

The case was simple. Greenwald was in NY where taping of witnesses was legal. Those rules are different in different states which was aknowledged by the court to MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE would misinterpret what is a standard misunderstanding in court, as anything other than that. And to see someone right here on DU, despite being told over and over again that they are misrepresentating what happened, repeatedly attempt to do exactly what the court did not want, slime Greenwald.

Here is what the court said. They being in a different state decided to apply the rules of THAT state, so Greenwald lost his argument, despite being within the rules in NY:

As the magistrate judge noted, although ultimately unsuccessful, defendants' arguments were reasonable. Defense counsel could have reasonably believed that his conduct was permissible. Although we find that his conduct did violate the rules, our rejection of his position does not equate to an indictment as an unethical person.

Weak and despicable attempt to attack the messenger when unable to attack the message. And so very old now. Debunked, filed away by anyone who does not wish to continue to embarrass themselves.

So sick of it.

Thank you for the links Luminous Animal. We probably should keep them handy as this will be produced again.